Military Review

Vladimir Zolotarev: “This war is not accidentally named the First World War ...”

23
Vladimir Zolotarev: “This war is not accidentally named the First World War ...”



In Russia, work is under way on recreating the truthful and objective stories First World War. An important direction of this complex multilateral activity was the creation under the auspices of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation a unique six-volume scientific work, which will be prepared as far as possible from the current situation. We asked to tell about the peculiarities of the work on this fundamental edition of the scientific supervisor of labor, the actual state adviser of the Russian Federation I class, major general of the reserve, doctor of historical and legal sciences, professor V.A. Zolotarev.

- In Soviet historiography, Russia's participation in the First World War was characterized as unnecessary, not meeting its interests. This view is common now. They say that the Russian Empire could and should have stayed aside from the armed conflict for as long as possible and stubbornly extracted political and economic benefits from it (as the USA did). Was such a turn of events possible?

- At the beginning of the twentieth century, Russia was the largest European power, and no war in Europe could not bypass it, regardless of the motives and policies of individual states. Perhaps, up to a certain point, she could have avoided participating in repelling German aggression, but the consequences of this would surely be even worse. In 1914, German troops approached the walls of Paris and were stopped by a Russian offensive in East Prussia. The aggressors were in a position of war on two fronts. And this status quo was maintained until late autumn of 1917. That is, Russia's participation in the war was beneficial to its allies in the Entente. But Russia also benefited from an alliance with France and Great Britain: the division of German troops into two theaters, the supply of military materials, etc. On the contrary, Russia's non-participation in the 1914 war could lead to the implementation of the Schlieffen Plan: the defeat of France and British troops, and then the transfer of hostilities against Russia. After all, the territorial claims of Germany and Austria-Hungary to our country are well known.

- What values ​​did Russia defend in that war? What benefits (besides the obvious geopolitical) could derive from the victory in it? Have any new documents appeared in the scientific circulation on this topic?

- According to foreign mass media, in particular, the BBC, “from Catherine II to Alexander II, St. Petersburg tried not to quarrel with anyone and not to get too close, and if possible, not to allow others to quarrel and change the balance forces The cornerstone of its foreign policy was the preservation of the European status quo. Russia fought with Turkey and Persia, annexed the Caucasus and the Far East, but in Europe it steadily sought to prevent the reshaping of borders and regime change. In general, more than a century, Russia, thanks to its enormous size and power, has been a very effective stabilizer and peacemaker. ” Since the time of Peter the Great, our country fought with the Ottoman Empire for access to the Mediterranean Sea, which promised colossal benefits for Russian exports. However, always behind the ports of Ports rose London and Paris, and from the end of the XIX century. - Berlin and Vienna. Russia wanted to weaken the influence of Austria-Hungary on Turkey. Here, too, an important role was played by helping co-religionists - Armenians, who since the end of the 19th century have been subjected to increasing oppression, and in some cases genocide.

Russia in World War I also defended the idea of ​​Slavic unity and the triumph of Orthodoxy in Constantinople.

- Recently, the hypothesis that some kind of secret “world government” (or its prototype) was originally planned to drag Russia into the hardest war, in order to exhaust the forces of the monarchy, provoke two revolutions, and then destroy and dismember her and take possession of the richest resources.

- Recently, in spite of well-studied (but extremely tendentiously) studied historical facts and a large number of documentary evidence on the causes of world wars, conspiracy versions are increasingly appearing in the media. That one author speaks of the 1914 year as the revenge of the English masons to their fellow masons, who broke away from them in 1871. Someone else blames a transatlantic financial structure that emerged in 1913 in the intentional pull of Russia into the 1914 – 1918 war. Anyway, there is no documentary evidence in favor of these versions, and their authors appeal to unverified information, and sometimes just rumors. With the understandable striving of these authors for sensationalism and the maintenance of print runs, such arguments are very far from historical science. New 6-volume fundamental scientific work should avoid this. I guess I answered your question.

- How do you assess the level of military-political, strategic and operational management of the actions of the fronts and armies by the Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief?

- The question of the compliance of the command level with the threats that the enemy has created is very complicated. Yes, the high command (and not only Russia) made mistakes. Sometimes the price of these mistakes was very high (as in the East Prussian operation 1914). Yes, somewhere there was a weak interaction between the commanders of various armies. Yes, the country as a whole (at the level of military production and supply of troops with ammunition) was not ready for a large-scale long-term positional war. However, it should be noted that not a single member country that entered World War I in 1914 did not count on a long-term struggle with such dire consequences.

The scope of the armed struggle during the First World War demanded changes in the methods of strategic leadership. Ensuring its unity politically, economically and militarily was of particular importance. This was to find its concrete embodiment in the structure and methods of work of the supreme bodies of strategic management. In Russia, the Supreme Commander’s Headquarters was such a body. The experience of the war as a whole has confirmed the expediency of creating the Headquarters. The main disadvantage was the complete separation of the theater of military operations from the rest of the country, the latter was governed by other departments. Little has changed with the assumption of duties of the Supreme Commander by Nicholas II.

Regarding personalities: the Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevich, despite the first setbacks (namely, defeat in East Prussia), in the opinion of contemporaries and subsequent researchers of the First World War, more closely corresponded to the post of Supreme Commander, which manifested itself on the Caucasian front. Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevich “behind the eyes” was called “crafty”, remembering that he never reported to the Emperor Nikolai the full extent of his designs and actions. Apparently, he believed that the post of commander-in-chief of the Caucasian Front has some freedom of action. Chief of Staff N.N. Yanushkevich went along with the Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevich to the Caucasus, but remained there in the shadow of Nikolai Nikolayevich. After the appointment of Nicholas II as supreme commander, many authors believe that M.V. Alekseev.

- Which of the commanders of the Russian fronts and armies could you single out first? Isn't the opinion about the general low level of Russian top officers erroneous and ideologically introduced?

- The introduced system of operational-strategic management of the Stavka-front-army was the most effective for conducting combat operations in several strategic areas. However, among the commanders of the fronts of the Russian army, unfortunately, there were no commanders who fully corresponded to the changed nature of the war. Nee N.V. Ruzsky, N.I. Ivanov, nor Ya.G. Zhilinsky, nor A.A. Brusilov (commanding the South-Western Front at the end of 1916 - the beginning of 1917) could not rise to a higher level of command. As A.A. Kersnovsky: “The strategic anarchy generated by the establishment of ridiculous“ fronts ”with their specific princes, commanders-in-chief, would not have led to good even if there were gifted commanders at the head of these senseless organisms ...“ The Fronts headed by the Manchu level and even below the Manchu level… Exceptionally, the leaders too, too, would suffer from the poorly manchurian leaders ... Exceptionally, the poorly manchurian leaders ... Exceptionally, the poorly Manchu leaders, and only the poorly Manchu leaders, exclusively the poor, but the Manchurians, and even below the Manchurian level the commanders-in-chief of the fronts paralyzed the work of the commanders of the armies. "

In general, the officer corps was fairly well prepared with the exception of the highest level. On the eve of the First World War, the Higher Attestation Commission for the Ministry of War proposed to fire a number of top military leaders of the Russian army, to which Nicholas II, in front of most of the names from the list, wrote: “Yes, but they are good people. Leave!

It is also worth noting the very low level of senior commanders in the armies of the main participating countries (P. Hindenburg, H. Moltke, Jr., J. French). An important factor here, apparently, were court intrigues and personal affections of heads of state.

At the same time, it is impossible not to note A.A.A. Brusilov (having brilliantly carried out the offensive, being the commander of the front, in 1917, he, alas, lost control of the troops), N.N. Yudenich, A.V. Kolchak, A.I. Denikin, L.G. Kornilov. In general, the Russian army commanders, in our opinion, corresponded to the realities of the First World War. Another problem is the material support of the troops. It also had an underdeveloped transport infrastructure (the length of the Russian front was 1600 km, and the French front was 700-900 km), and the weak development of the defense industry, with the result that Russia largely depended on the supply of ammunition by our allies. But these deliveries (having gone through a number of the hardest approvals) did not always arrive on time at the front due to the remoteness of the ports (first of all, Arkhangelsk) from the theater of operations and the weak throughput capacity of the Russian railways.

- Will your work assess the relationship within the military-political alliances, and above all - in the Entente bloc? Do you share the opinion that our allies - Britain and France - pursued a dual policy towards Russia, pursuing their own selfish interests, being ready to fight the Austro-German bloc “until the last Russian soldier”?

- Issues of intra-blocking interaction, as shown by subsequent wars of the twentieth century, are very important. In our work, we will try to give a balanced assessment of the goals of our allies in relation to post-war Russia and its interests, and also for the first time in our national historiography, we will evaluate the forms, methods and effectiveness of the interaction of allies not only in the Entente, but also in the Triple Alliance. Also will be subjected to a critical analysis of the desire of London and Paris to fulfill their geopolitical obligations to our country. The latter can be judged by the recently declassified foreign policy correspondence of London and Paris, as well as an analysis of the activities of their residents in Russia. In this regard, we plan to attract foreign historians who will rely on archival materials in their countries. Comparison of data from foreign and domestic archives, I believe, will help us come to the truth.

- Do you have fears that an honest and detailed story about the treacherous position of the Bolsheviks and their allies, perhaps, will repel quite a wide circle of the public from your work, still committed to leftist ideas, will provoke a wave of criticism on their part?

- I would like to begin my answer with a quote from a note from the former Interior Minister P.N. Durnovo to Nikolay II of February 1914: “Russia, of course, is widely presented as a particularly fertile ground for social upheavals ... A Russian commoner, a peasant and a worker are not equally looking for political rights, which are both unnecessary and incomprehensible. The peasant dreams of giving his alien land freely, the worker - of transferring to him all the capital and profits of the manufacturer, and beyond this their desires do not go. And it is only to throw these slogans widely into the population, if only the government authorities irrevocably allow agitation in this direction - Russia will undoubtedly be plunged into anarchy, which it experienced during the memorable period of 1905 — 1906 turmoil ... such agitation. As already noted, this war is fraught with great difficulties for us and cannot be a triumphal march to Berlin. Inevitable and military setbacks, hopefully partial ones, one or the other shortcomings in our supplies will also be inevitable. With the exceptional nervousness of our society, these circumstances will be given exaggerated importance, and with the opposition of this society, everything will be put in the guilt of the government. ”

As we see, some representatives of the royal power were aware of future problems. The main difficulty was, as for modern Ukraine, in the determination of the authorities to suppress this infection. Objectively speaking, the fermentation on the front was caused not only by the activities of the left parties. If we consider the problem chronologically, then responsibility for the collapse of the state and the army should not be removed from the centrist parties (first of all, the Cadets). It was their criticism of the belligerent state in the rear and became a "knife in the back." In my opinion, the main “click to the revolution” was the bright anti-government speech of P.N. Milyukova 1 (14 November) 1916 g. "Stupidity or treason," based on an article in a German newspaper. I would like to emphasize that this was not the case in any other warring country. All deputies (be it Germany, Austria-Hungary, Great Britain or France) united around the supreme power, rather than weave intrigues and did not arouse the people against power. In any case, one cannot but agree with the opinions of contemporaries who wrote about the liberals of that time: “These elements themselves are so weak, so scattered, and we must speak directly, so mediocre that their triumph would be as short as it is fragile. The strongest and most active of them is the Cadet Party, leading the rest of them; but if you look at it not in the sense of written programs, but in the sense of the everyday features of its very existence and the consistent course of its occurrence, then you will have to admit that this party is strong only by its weakness. ”

So criticism has to be expected from two sides. One can only hope that these judgments will be in the nature of scientific discussion and constructive criticism.

- Do you intend to tell about all the operations of the Great War, including the actions of the allies, or only about the most significant ones? Operations will be highlighted in chronological order or on some other principle, for example, by country?

- During the 1568 days, fierce battles took place on the fronts of the First World War. Most of them had strategic goals and were carried out on a very large scale. It is impossible not to show them, especially considering that this war is undeservedly forgotten in our country. The basic principle will be chronological. Naturally, due attention will be paid to the fighting on the French and Russian fronts, on other continents and on the seas.

- What specific lessons can you draw from the experience of that war and preparation for it today? Do you find it helpful at all to talk about these lessons in the pages of your work?

-This war was not accidentally named the First World War. Already the Russian-Japanese war showed that the conflicting interests of the great powers can often go against their formal allied obligations. Therefore, any armed clash of one of them threatens to escalate into a "war of all against all." Today, as in the early twentieth century, there is a threat that local armed conflicts will escalate into a global world war. From this point of view, the study of the experience of the First World War is priceless.

- What scientific teams of our country cooperate with your editors?

- A wide circle of historians from the Russian Academy of Sciences (institutes of universal and Russian history, Slavic studies), representatives of military educational research centers (Research Institute of Military History of the Military Academy of the General Staff and the Joint Academy), and representatives of the Moscow and St. Petersburg universities, the Volga State Social-Humanitarian Academy and a number of "security agencies" (FSB, SVR, Ministry of Emergency Situations).

- Do you attract foreign partners to work, and if so, to whom?

- Work on attracting foreign scientists to participate in our work is underway. So far, the relevant negotiations are underway with our colleagues from Serbia.

- Who finances the building?

- Financing of the project is conducted in the established order by decision of the Minister of Defense of Russia.

- When do you plan to complete the publication of all six volumes and when to wait for the first volume to come out of print?

- It is planned to publish the first volume in the summer of 2014 - on the 100 anniversary of the beginning of the Great War, and the last, the sixth, at the end of 2017. At the same time, I would like to once again stipulate the position of the team of authors: it was the agreement in the Compiegne forest that ended the bloodshed, while the Versailles peace of 1919 laid down many contradictions that resulted in World War II. Although, of course, in the final volume of work all international agreements (both peace treaties and League of Nations Statute) of 1917 - 1919 will be considered.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.stoletie.ru/voyna_1914/vladimir_zolotarev_eta_vojna_ne_sluchajno_nazvana_pervoj_mirovoj_100.htm
23 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. SS68SS
    SS68SS April 23 2014 16: 27
    +14
    .... In 1914, German troops approached the walls of Paris and were stopped by the Russian offensive in East Prussia. The aggressors were in a state of war on two fronts. And this status quo persisted until late fall 1917 r .....


    It turns out that they saved France like real allies. And after 30 years, our "allies" only in 44 opened a second front (mind you, not in 41 and 42, when it was really bad for us). And then only so that the Russians did not reach Portugal. This is the face of Anglo-American miscarriages of bitches. Vile, deceitful and disgusting. Since then, nothing has changed.
    1. mamont5
      mamont5 April 23 2014 17: 06
      +2
      Quote: SS68SS
      .... In 1914, German troops approached the walls of Paris and were stopped by the Russian offensive in East Prussia. The aggressors were in a state of war on two fronts. And this status quo persisted until late fall 1917 r .....

      It turns out that they saved France like real allies. And after 30 years, our "allies" only in 44 opened a second front (mind you, not in 41 and 42, when it was really bad for us). And then only so that the Russians did not reach Portugal. This is the face of Anglo-American miscarriages of bitches. Vile, deceitful and disgusting. Since then, nothing has changed.


      The offensive in East Prussia was the first tragedy of the WWII. 2-I Russian army of Samsonov died completely, Samsonov himself shot himself. And the Russians have repeatedly paid with their blood distracting the German troops.
      1. rJIiOK
        rJIiOK April 24 2014 22: 42
        0
        And I read that not completely. And most of the banners of the regiments carried out.
    2. saygon66
      saygon66 April 23 2014 17: 19
      +2
      - In August this year marks 100 years of the battle of Gumbinen (Gusev, Kaliningrad region) the first clash of the Russian and German armies, which had an impact on the entire course of the war ...
      - This is the project of the Bayonet Attack monument, which will be installed in Gusev in July-August ...
      1. torry
        torry April 24 2014 11: 30
        0
        What an ugly monument. It seems that the rifle does not weigh 4 kilograms, but all 25.
      2. torry
        torry April 24 2014 11: 30
        0
        What an ugly monument. It seems that the rifle does not weigh 4 kilograms, but all 25.
  2. Deniska999
    Deniska999 April 23 2014 16: 36
    +3
    Even if the Russian Empire could not help but get involved in the First World War, my negative attitude to Nicholas II will still remain the same.
    1. Reddragon
      Reddragon April 23 2014 17: 25
      0
      Yes, the monarchists will not like it, but Nikolai 2 was the one who was guilty of the death of RI. it had to think of to enter the world war when the house was not calm !?
      Although they fought badly too: our army in size and armament was approximately 80% all troops of the enemy coalition. Given that the triple (quarter) alliance was torn between two fronts, we not only did not defeat them, but were thrown deep into our country. From a greater collapse in 1915. it saved that Germany made a mistake in assessing the defeat of the Russians and went to the West ... Everything else, a matter of resources and reserves.
      1. 11111mail.ru
        11111mail.ru April 23 2014 18: 49
        0
        Quote: RedDragoN
        Everything else is a matter of resources and reserves.

        The point was precisely to let R.I. to a revolutionary situation (on the part of the so-called "Entente" and use its potential to weaken Germany.
        Remember the immortal anecdote about a frozen sparrow, about a cow and a cat that matched him, that a warmed-up bird was snatched up: not every enemy you, who fooled you, and not every friend that pulled you out of the crap. But what is the Entente was no better than the Germans, this is unambiguous! Russia entered the war with the enemy in alliance with its own enemies, for which later it got what it was "raped" by both enemies and allies.
      2. Bakht
        Bakht April 23 2014 22: 29
        0
        Quote: RedDragoN
        Yes, the monarchists will not like it, but Nikolai 2 was the one who was guilty of the death of RI. it had to think of to enter the world war when the house was not calm !?

        Just before the First World War in Russia, not everything was so bad. The fact that they made a mistake in the timing of the war and stocks, so all countries were mistaken. And England and France and Germany.

        What about how they fought? As everyone fought, so did the Russian army. No better and no worse than others.
  3. Giant thought
    Giant thought April 23 2014 16: 38
    +3
    The mistakes of history should not be repeated, and the mistakes of the Russian Empire should be taken into account in the modern alignment of forces. First of all, we must proceed from what is beneficial to Russia. To do this, you need to be independent in politics and finance, as well as self-sufficient in the economy. Then you can calmly dictate your will to everyone, including mattresses.
    1. ya.seliwerstov2013
      ya.seliwerstov2013 April 23 2014 16: 44
      +5
      To avoid bloody troubles in the future,
      There are different teachers,
      Both young and old need to know:
      Only cowards forget history ...
      1. Patton5
        Patton5 April 23 2014 17: 27
        0
        Golden words! good Who said that?
  4. mig31
    mig31 April 23 2014 16: 47
    +2
    The West does not like the truth, to put it mildly, there are plenty of interpretations on this subject, a documentary approach is needed, which pseudo-historians have nothing to cover ...
  5. Bakht
    Bakht April 23 2014 16: 52
    +2
    I'm more interested in the position of the allies in the last days of the world. According to data that have been known for a long time, the allies were going to betray Russia from the very first day of the campaign.

    The motives of the Gallipoli operation are also of interest.
    1. mamont5
      mamont5 April 23 2014 17: 13
      0
      Quote: Bakht
      I'm more interested in the position of the allies in the last days of the world. According to data that have been known for a long time, the allies were going to betray Russia from the very first day of the campaign.


      There was a direct betrayal of the allies. So England, which then owned the straits, missed 2 German cruisers into the Black Sea: linear - Goeben and light - Breslau, to paralyze the Russian Black Sea Fleet. Then Russia on the Black Sea did not have ships that could fight with Goeben. Only 3 old battleship all together could resist him. And so it went on until the commissioning of new battleships such as Empress Maria.
      1. 11111mail.ru
        11111mail.ru April 23 2014 19: 15
        0
        Quote: mamont5
        And so it went on until the commissioning of new battleships such as Empress Maria.

        Not everything is so, and not quite so, and even not at all so. Admiral Eberhard was removed in July 1916. Ch.F. headed by A.V. Kolchak on July 7 (old style) 1916. The death of the battleship "Empress Maria occurred on October 7 (20), 1916. However, A.V. Kolchak" sealed "the Black Sea with mines. From July 1916 to July A mine-barrage operation (four sets) and sixteen separate mine sets were carried out in 1917. The Goeben and Breslau crews "smoked bamboo" in Turkish harbors, and the Black Sea became Russian.
      2. Bakht
        Bakht April 23 2014 22: 25
        0
        Quote: mamont5
        There was a direct betrayal of the allies. So England, which then owned the straits, missed 2 German cruisers into the Black Sea: linear - Goeben and light - Breslau, to paralyze the Russian Black Sea Fleet. Then Russia on the Black Sea did not have ships that could fight with Goeben. Only 3 old battleship all together could resist him. And so it went on until the commissioning of new battleships such as Empress Maria.

        This is not true. First, England did not own the straits. Secondly, Geben ran from five battleships of the Black Sea Fleet. Not once (!) Goeben did not go on a combat clash. All the skirmishes were a catch-up game.
  6. Indifferent
    Indifferent April 23 2014 16: 53
    +5
    A very important question about the First World War. I specifically studied it. There is almost no literature. It is very good if there is a six-volume story.
    I do not agree with the author on everything. We had good army and division commanders. Denikin alone is worth something. At the beginning of the war, he was a brigade commander and his brigade was named "iron" for the successes at the front. It is not so much a matter of poor management of the fronts as of the constant undersupply of the armies. There was not enough artillery, shells too, even the everyday expression "shell hunger" appeared. Machine guns were fewer at times. There were very few planes, and there were no tanks at all. And at the same time they carried out brilliant operations, both defensive and offensive!
    I would especially like to say about the highest military command and government. War Minister General Sukhomlinov was put on trial. General Alekseev, who succeeded him, turned out to be a freemason and betrayed the Tsar. And the government and especially the Duma did everything to destroy the country in 1917.
    1. mpa945
      mpa945 April 23 2014 17: 51
      +2
      I don’t want to jerk quotes from the article, but it didn’t seem to me that this group of authors wouldn’t present another order "on the topic of the day. There are a lot of" reservations according to Freud "in the text.
      Therefore, I minus the article.
      Although objective research is entirely welcome.
    2. 11111mail.ru
      11111mail.ru April 23 2014 19: 20
      0
      Quote: indifferent
      I want to say about the highest military command

      Read about N.N. Yudenich, how he commanded the Caucasian front. Talent! Not without reason in the "second campaign of the Entente" the small divisions of the White headed by him instilled fear in the St. Petersburg Bolsheviks. The "red Bashkirs" alone were transferred to Petrograd in a comparable number with white fighters.
    3. Azzzwer
      Azzzwer April 23 2014 19: 27
      0
      Quote: indifferent
      Denikin alone is worth it.
      Well, yes indeed !!! What is it worth? What does he cost after he left his troops near Novorossiysk and sailed to Crimea in 1920? When the evacuation of the army on the peninsula turned into a disaster! What is it worth? For such a betrayal, under Stalin he would be put to the wall!
  7. armageddon
    armageddon April 23 2014 16: 59
    0
    Quote: Giant thought
    The mistakes of history should not be repeated, and the mistakes of the Russian Empire should be taken into account in the modern alignment of forces. First of all, we must proceed from what is beneficial to Russia. To do this, you need to be independent in politics and finance, as well as self-sufficient in the economy. Then you can calmly dictate your will to everyone, including mattresses.

    ha so now it will be
  8. Andrey82
    Andrey82 April 23 2014 17: 44
    +4
    Even if there had not been a Revolution and Russia and the allies had squeezed Germany and Austria-Hungary, we would not have received the Bosphorus and Dardanelles, but a powerful anti-Russian coalition from England, France and weakened Germany.
    The situation with the outbreak of the Crimean War would be repeated.
    1. Sanmak
      Sanmak April 23 2014 18: 13
      +1
      Russia has no allies except the Russian army !!!
      Russia has so-called "partners" whose interests temporarily coincide, as soon as the opportunity arises, they will surely betray Russia, if it is beneficial to them, 100% !!!



      RUSSIA HAS NO, NO AND WILL NOT HAVE ALLIES, NEVER !!!

      IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE ANYONE !!!
    2. Azzzwer
      Azzzwer April 23 2014 19: 30
      0
      Quote: Andrey82
      we would not get the Bosporus and the Dardanelles, but a powerful anti-Russian coalition from England, France and weakened Germany.
      The situation with the outbreak of the Crimean War would be repeated.
      and we can definitely say that Russia would have been defeated in 2MV!
  9. Vasily Klopkov
    Vasily Klopkov April 23 2014 18: 28
    +3
    On August 6, 1915, something happened that went down in world history under the name "attack of the dead." 60 Russian soldiers fled the 7th German army ... http://vklopkov.livejournal.com/287663.html
    1. vitalm
      vitalm April 23 2014 22: 39
      0
      THE WHOLE ESSENCE OF THE RUSSIAN NATION _ WE NEVER GIVE UP
  10. Prutkov
    Prutkov April 23 2014 18: 32
    +2
    The history of war shows that "victory is created in the rear". It was the weak rear base that led to the defeat in the Crimean War. And in the First World War, the belligerent army was openly betrayed in the rear, the State Duma, by both "their" centrists and left-wing socialists. Well, and there is no need to talk about the desire of a large number of bourgeois to make money on supplies to the army. Unfortunately, the situation in the country with the implementation of the defense order corresponds to the level of the First World War.
    1. 11111mail.ru
      11111mail.ru April 23 2014 19: 24
      0
      Quote: Rods
      It was the weak rear base that led to the defeat in the Crimean War.

      Read what the troops of the "Eastern Reich", "grateful" R.I. for help in suppressing the Magyar uprising. Why did the Russian army stand on the western borders throughout the war?
  11. 11111mail.ru
    11111mail.ru April 23 2014 19: 31
    0
    Perhaps, up to some point, she could have avoided participating in repulsing German aggression, but the consequences would probably have been even worse. Author Alexander Pronin

    Minus rolled in. Consciously and with conviction: Russia did not need that "great" war. It was not needed by the workers, peasants, the majority of the Russian people, whose labors Russia grew and developed.
  12. demotivator
    demotivator April 23 2014 19: 45
    +2
    - What values ​​did Russia defend in that war?

    Under Alexander I, Russia, having received Warsaw and Helsinki, became the European empire. Now the next task was set - to become a world-class empire. The conquests in the Caucasus and Central Asia gave Russia the status of a great Eurasian power, but all these acquisitions were geopolitical dead ends. In 1853, the Russian Empire tried to become the hegemon of the “Christian” part of the Ottoman Empire, but was stopped by the united West. Russia failed to break through into the Balkans or the Near and Middle East. A new attempt - in 1878 - also met with resistance from the West, and reconquered Bulgaria was quickly overbought by Germany.
    The consolation prize for Russia was only the poor Serbia and Montenegro. The Chinese punitive campaign of 1900-1901 made Russia the master of Manchuria, but after 4 years the war with Japan deprived Russia of the fruits and these conquests, burying the Yellow Russia project.
    Petersburg goes to an anti-German alliance with France and Great Britain. After the creation of the secret military alliance between Russia and France in 1892, the pro-French lobby in the Russian military, industrial-trade and aristocratic circles rapidly developed. The intelligentsia is already in soul and heart with "beautiful France." The idea of ​​Petersburg diplomats, perhaps, seems to them to be brilliant - relying on France, which for half a century has not allowed Russia to enter the Eastern Mediterranean, it is just to break through there. The key to a breakthrough is the Straits. They become an obsessive mania for Russian politics. So, by the beginning of the 1870th century, France wants at all costs to win back the provinces lost in 1853, and Russia wants to get the Turkish possessions that literally went under the nose in 1878 and 1905. Two madmen find each other. In April 1905, France, despising what would now be called “gross and massive violations of human rights in Russia,” gives Petersburg huge loans (the main thing is, of course, the public offering of Russian bonds in France). This provides funds for social reforms that help to strangle the "Liberation Movement of 1906-XNUMX", and for the unprecedented rearmament of the army, the creation of a fleet literally anew. One condition - the secret protocol requires Russia to launch an attack on Berlin two weeks after the mobilization. Ignoring the "jailer of the Slavs" of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the "jailer of the Eastern Christians" the Ottoman Empire - it would seem, the main opponents of the St. Petersburg Slavophiles.
    From that moment on, both the German and Russian empires were doomed. Germany will never win the war against the combined Franco-British forces, having in the rear a millionth Russian army, even retreating across Poland and Galicia. The Russian Empire (i.e., the semi-feudal monarchy) is deliberately not able to survive the enormous exertion of forces necessary to participate in the pan-European war.
    These are all the "values".
  13. 1812 1945
    1812 1945 April 23 2014 19: 49
    0
    God grant that soon this work will see the light! It is difficult to change the opinion of the emperor and the Russians in World War I after almost a century of propaganda organized initially by the Anglo-Saxons. They, the English royal court, doomed the emperor's family to death. That Jewish okroshka from shtetl lumpen, liberals, students, sadistic maniacs who were positioned as revolutionaries was only performers - enthusiasts. For the most part - from very base motives. And the Russian soldiers in that war were the best and covered themselves with glory, showing the world an example of wonderful training, courage, fidelity! And they fought not by numbers but by skill! Russian officers who were not hiding behind the backs of soldiers were also excellent military professionals ... Let's hope that in the upcoming publication there will be truth about the Russian Heroes of the First World War without bias, without politicization, or incompetence.
  14. tokens2
    tokens2 April 23 2014 20: 50
    +1
    I am sure that historical thought will rethink the lessons of 1MV. Why?
    This war was multi-vector and had many goals.
    And to consider this war only from a military point of view is not correct.
    To fight with "friends" against "enemies" and in the end almost create Europe from Lisbonne to Vladivostok ... and end wars in Europe for centuries - I think this was what Tsar Nicholas 2, so not loved by many, wanted to do.
    And after all, the diplomat was our king’s excellent ... paving the way to his goal at the expense of the Europeans themselves — a delicate game on the way to a European common home.
    And the subtle game includes elements of "weakness" and "unreadiness" of Russia, and why be honest laughing "backwardness" and "downturn" of Russia understands laughing .
    I’ll even say more ... and the defeat of Russia at the 1st stage of the 1MB (in Prussia) also fits into the overall plan of victory over the Germans and French ...
    Well, what? -What do we feel sorry for the French for ... ... -they constantly pounded to us and were in the Crimea, but why? To help defend Paris ... yes and no more.
    But Russia fought half the strength in 1MB. In the rear everything was not bad, there were no cards ... The tsar also owes it.
    But all this was not an insidious plan of the Russian tsar, but a historical revenge for the super-ambitions of the Europeans themselves, corrected by the Russian gloomy genius.
    Russia's mistake in only one- in the terms of the February Revolution. I think 1 day before the surrender of Germany is that red day of the calendar.
    And the flow of demobilization throughout Europe against the backdrop of the Russian revolution ...
    The problem of external intervention on our land would disappear, which means ... the Bolsheviks had nothing to catch in Russia.
    Although who knows, maybe the Communist Party would have won legally in the elections and without the blood flows of a civil war.
    Perhaps Tsar Nicholas 2 and wanted just such a scenario?

    Please do not swallow the whole text at once laughing
    What is the analogy with today? Think. It exists. Russia again has a powerful trump card, only it must be used for all 100 avoiding the mistakes of 1917. Well, or exchange this trump card for the reconstruction of the Russian Empire! I would like with the monarch in a new interpretation and with new goals for the development of mankind. as it is.
  15. demotivator
    demotivator April 24 2014 08: 13
    0
    Quote: Lexi2
    To fight with "friends" against "enemies" and in the end almost create Europe from Lisbonne to Vladivostok ... and end wars in Europe for centuries - I think this was what Tsar Nicholas 2, so not loved by many, wanted to do.

    The only problem is to correctly determine who are friends and who are enemies. Are France and Britain friends? Since when? All their life they did nothing but spoil Russia in every possible way, and suddenly - friends? I will not go into a detailed account of the history of our relations with these countries, which suddenly became allies of Russia, I will only note that now, when the countries of the former "Entente" are preparing to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the beginning of that war, Russia's former allies are ready to participate in these events. do not invite. Russia fought honestly as part of the Entente, millions of our soldiers died, millions were wounded, became disabled. After that, a revolution took place in the country, as a result of which Russia ceased to participate in the struggle against the Germans. So what?
    For example, the same Romania, which signed the Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty even earlier than the Bolsheviks did and also withdrew from the war with Germany. Nevertheless, following the results of the First World War, Romania not only became a victorious power, but also from our “grateful” allies received in 1918 a piece of Russian territory - Bessarabia. Therefore, the question - whether Russia has the right to be considered the winner in the First World War, of course, has only a positive answer. And one more example is France (which is still an "ally"). Is France eligible to participate in World War II parades? Does France participate in these parades? Is France considered a victorious power? After the defeat of Hitler, did she receive a zone of occupation in Germany and Austria? Did she participate in international conferences at which the results of the Second World War were summed up?
    All of these questions are answered in the affirmative. France is considered the victorious power, takes part in parades. Although France’s contribution to the defeat of fascism simply cannot be compared with the efforts and sacrifices that were required of the USSR. France emerged from the war almost at the very beginning. The losses of the German army during the occupation of France amounted to about 20 thousand people. This is an insignificant figure. Millions of French soldiers did not give their lives for a common victory, not because the French commanders “took care of their people,” but because in fact France did not fight against Hitler from 1940 to 1944. The only person who ultimately saved the honor of France and gave her the opportunity to be among the winners was Charles de Gaulle and a fairly small number of his supporters. So, friends and allies must be chosen correctly.
  16. tokens2
    tokens2 April 24 2014 18: 24
    0
    The only problem is to correctly determine who are friends and who are enemies. Are these France and UK friends? Since when? All my life they’ve only done that they crap Russia in every possible way, and all of a sudden - friends?

    "friends" and "enemies" mean exactly in quotes.

    "friends" - England and France.
    "enemies" -Germany.
    That is, in 1mv diplomacy was conducted by military methods.

    Well, for example ... there is a mammoth (Germany).
    Three savages want to overwhelm him - England, France, Russia. The right of honor to throw the 1st spear fell to France ... on the oncoming mammoth ... laughing
    The 2nd Savage (England) joined the 1st.
    Well, the 3rd Savage ... was not hungry, although he delivered blows that weakened the game.
    Of course, Germany is not a mammoth ... but rather a savage who did not understand that he had made himself a mammoth.
    Russia honestly fought as part of the Entente, millions of our soldiers died, millions were injured, and became disabled.

    Russia's losses in that war were much less GENERAL losses of Germany + France + England with a very high birth rate in Russia.
    In addition, the Russians were captured ... until the end of the war and not to the gas chamber ...
    And Europeans, fighting with Russia, were draining themselves. How long?
    In general, the time has come for the European Union to become a collective France of 1940 - for Russia laughing They already have experience. For their own good.
    And Russia will not become Nazi Germany because we are "savages" thinking and well fed with a large territory laughing